Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show 276
grammar fascist writes "Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty. New stories are released quarterly, with new column installments added monthly to the current issue. New art is created for each story. There isn't even an attempt at draconian content control. Writers and artists give exclusive rights for one year - after that, limited rights. Card wants your stories and art, not your copyrights. I've finished the first issue now, and the stories are great. "Eviction Notice" made me cry, and I laughed out loud at "Loose in the Wires." I paid my $2.50 initially to support the business model, but the stories themselves are worth it."
Great for O.S. Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The guy is a fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'd have to say that Tom Cruise never put out an enjoyable movie, that you never sang along to a Michael Jackson song in the 80s, that OJ simpson wasn't a great football player. People are different, some of the most talented are flawed.
What there's no room for in the 21st century are the black/white reactionary actions you espouse. If you disagree with Card's politics, fine. If you don't want to buy or even keep his books, fine. But stating that there's no room for "animals" like him? Way to paint yourself into that extremist corner and lose any validity for your argument. Try formulating an argument, support it with facts, and allow your reader to determine whether this is someone they want to support.
Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
We pay 6 cents a word up to $500. Stories can be longer, but the word rate drops with increasing length to always yield a total of $500.
With this payment we buy exclusive rights in any language or any medium throughout the world for one year from date of first publication in the magazine, and nonexclusive electronic and/or online rights in any language in perpetuity. We also buy nonexclusive print and audio rights throughout the world and in all languages for inclusion in multi-author anthologies based on the magazine, for which you will receive a pro rata share of the authors' share of advances and royalties, to be reported and paid when reports and payments are received by us from the publisher (or, if we are the publisher, every six months after one year after publication, if there are any earnings to report).
Though these rights are not outrageous, they are by no means extraordinary. In fact, they are more restrictive than your average magazine rights - usually they don't restrict your right to publish in other media for a year, like this does (eg, according to this you are not allowed to sell your story to any anthology for a year from the publication date...).
So essentially, whereas magazines normally only buy first rights (the rights to be the first to publish the story), this one wants to be the only one for at least a year. Respect for the author's rights? Really?
Daniel
You arer kidding, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhhh.... no. My PayPal account was frozen when I sold something on eBay and there was a dispute between myself and the buyer. Both PayPal and eBay ruled in my favor (this was before eBay bought PayPal) but then in sour grapes that the arbitration didn't go his way, the buyer did a reverse charge on his credit card, PayPal told me to pay up or they freeze my account. And this is despite the fact that they ruled in my favor. I told them which layer of Dante's Infero to go and will NEVER use PayPal ever again.
Re:The guy is a fascist (Score:3, Insightful)
he did know his target audience though -- angsty teens. ender's game appeals strongly to teens, because it's a story about getting ultimate revenge on bullies. what angsty bullied teen doesn't love a story like that?
oh and before you accuse me of dissing ender's game "just because you don't like his politics" -- i read ender's game and concluded it was mediocre fluff about a decade before I ever discovered osc was an asshat - or anything else about him for that matter. osc's political views have zero bearing on my conclusion ender's game is doggie poo.
there are many, many SF stories which are "great". ender's game is not one of them.
Re:The guy is a fascist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In general we agree, but this gets to his work (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiiight. (Score:2, Insightful)
After my wife and I decided we'd had enough, we had nonstop unwanted calls and visits by guys in dark suits. Each and every time they came to our door we told them that we weren't interested, weren't coming back and that we wanted the harassment to stop. The bishop even told us that it was his "ecclesiastical duty" to continue the unwanted calls and visits until we wrote a letter resigning our membership. WTF??
After we wrote the letter, and they wouldn't accept an email, then the vicious rumors started and our Mormon friends stopped talking to us. It may be all smiles going in, but it's all daggers going out.
Yeah, nice folks. Love 'em to death.
The man knows quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
OSC also is very active compared to other SFF writers in teaching the next generation to write. He's taught creative writing classes (and he's much more qualified than most who teach those usually worthless classes). He's written a book on how to write SFF, and a book on characterization. And, believe it or not, both books have solid advice...I taught myself how to write before I picked up his books on characterization and SFF, and I pretty much was nodding, going, "Yes, this is right...I do that already...yep, he's got it right..." What I had learned independantly on my own was confirmed in them. They're the only books on writing I've read so far that actually know what they're talking about...I've laughed a few others out the window for being absurdly incorrect on a lot of points.
I have the feeling that the new webzine is just another step in making a high-quality market for the next generation of writers. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into the next, oh, I don't know...Azimov's, or something like Marion Zimmer Bradley's anthologies, or other SFF 'zine that was backed by a highly talented author, back in the "Good 'ol days".
Re:Dude, me too. (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact lots of military Sci-Fi falls in that category. Check out David Weber's works for instance. Democracy is just something that gets in the way of chain of command in those books, and it usually does whatever the worst thing possible would be. He primarily uses it as a way to inject "bad" characters into the chain of command so his darling heros can show them up and look better in the eyes of the higher-ups.
Re:Card's Ideals (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like equal protection under the law for the way they happen to be born? Or did you mean to marry who they want because they love that person?
When people talk about the political goals of a group they usually mean that they don't want that group to have the same rights as they do.
Take your pick. The anti-slavery groups, womens suffrage, womens rights, the people in these groups were denouced at one time or another (and to some extent still are) because these groups wanted the same rights for their members as the rest of the people had (usually white men).
exhibiting lewd behavior on "gay pride" day you're branded a homophobe.
So it's okay when heterosexual women flash their breasts (lewd behavior) during Mardi Gras or get felt up by their studmuffin while sitting on the park bench.
Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually ever read his work? Lots of fascinating ideas in there. Some are getting dated...ie, in Ender's Game there's a scene where Ender fools the other kids by basically signing up for a second account and IMing everyone, and while that stuff didn't exist when the book was written, it's common nowdays so probably doesn't have the same effect as it did not 10 years ago...but others are still interesting.
His feuding brothers are getting annoying, though. For some reason half of his brothers like to hate the other halfs' guts. But that's another topic alltogether...
and inane social commentary
Well, I find it nice that he's so involved with his community. Perhaps you find contributing to community inane, but I respect it.
The man is a racist homophobic bigot
Racist? Obviously you've never read his stuff. As for homophobic...perhaps, I don't like his opinions there myself. I don't think he's a bigot, though. A bigot is someone who never considers anyone else's view. I think he's someone who has thought about it, and has chosen his path, much like I've considered things, and I've chosen my path. Not everyone who is not all for gay rights or who supports Bush is a narrow-minded bigot, as much as I'd like to jump on that bandwagon myself and say they are. (wouldn't that be a form of bigotry itself?)
who deserves scorn and scrutiny
In that order? The scorn before the scrutiny? ::grin:: Perhaps reverse that...take a good look at what he's saying, then decide if you want to scorn everything, or not.
I'm not saying everyone should lovy-dovy-love him, just that I've found in my own following of his columns that he has more interesting, worthwhile ideas than not, and I've found I respect someone who contributes to his communties--SFF literature, and his local hometown--more than someone who bitches and complains but doesn't try to pitch in to help in their own communities. I do find his views on homosexuality to be a shame, though. And Bush. Bleh. I don't read his political columns anymore, because I know I don't agree.
(Heh, I'm such a moderate...damned because I'm not left-wing enough, damned because I'm not right-wing enough.)
Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech means you don't even have to churn out second rate overblown sci-fi to have this right. "Bash, discredit, and spread hate" is your spin on what he is doing, others have other opinions.
Of course, on Slashdot, your opinion is the only Approved opinion, and all others should be mercilessly suppressed. Oh, well, unless they also produce some decent fiction, then maybe we'll consider tolerating it...
Re:Deal With It (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Card's Ideals (Score:2, Insightful)
The Church is against this too. I am a Mormon, I have *many* homosexual friends, and we agree to disagree about it. They know how I stand, I know how they stand, and we are okay with that. They do their marches, and I send letters. I don't agree with the idea of same sex "marriages", and calling couples "families", but you know something? Neither do most of my homosexual/bisexual friends. They agree that a "family" is a father, mother, and maybe some children. I am a convert, wasn't a member until I was 21, yet I have never been to a "titty bar" because I disagree with the idea. It isn't something I support. But I don't condemn people for going to them. That is not my place. If it is wrong, as I believe, then it will be sorted out when we die. But that doesn't mean that I have to support it. In fact I am quite offended by public nudity, *including* Mardi Gras. There is nothing wrong with the human body, but I think people should have more self-respect.
I do denounce the lifestyle. I disagree with it. But I do not denounce the people. I don't think they should be gathered and shot, nor do I think that they should be unable to find work. I don't even withhold my friendship. But I will not fight on their side when they ask to call a same-sex union a "marriage" and the union that results a "family" because these definitions are contrary to my own. And you know, because I am not harming directly through withholding my support, it is my *right* to do so, just as it is their *right* to be as they are. I will not persecute them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.
Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?
cool! but can i get it in print?! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's great that Orson Scott Card is doing his own magazine! I've read some anthologies that he's edited, and they were very good. However, I'd really love to order this in PRINT, if I could, or head over to the magazine store to pick up the latest issue.
As much as we'd like websites to take over the print market, I just don't see it happening. I still want a piece of paper in my hand when it comes to reading. Even if it was on one of those nice new paper-like LCD screens, I can't imagine it would be an equal experience to holding a book in your hand. I think it's not resolution that is the defining factor here. It is something about the permanence of ink on paper that wins me over. When I finish reading a great story, I never want to lose it. I want to put it on my shelf so I know where it is. The harddrive is such a volatile place to store memories that you don't want to lose...
Re:Deal With It (Score:5, Insightful)
The Taliban are religious fanatics. Pat Roberson is a religious fanatic. Orson Scott Card is not a religious fanatic, he is someone who simply has views that differ with yours.
At one time in the Western world it was considered enlightened to have free an open discussion amoung people with differing views. You respected those you disagreed with, if they respected you, even if you had political disagreements. Even if there was NO ONE who would argue a certain point of view, someone would be the "devil's advocate", and argue that point of view - because to not expose yourself to a certain point was considered the height of ignorance!
How low we have sunk, to where one questions the sanity of anyone who disagrees with them, and will not have anything to do with them... and now, increasingly they want to throw people who disagree with them in prison, or at least make it illegal for them to speak in public.
Re:Deal With It (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
He is voicing his opinion that he thinks that homosexual marriage is wrong and should be outlawed. That is called the democratic process. He is not declaring it to be illegal. There are people that have the opinion that children should have the "right" to have sex with adults. There are people that have the opinion that all sex outside of marriage should be illegal.
You have two choices.
1. You can as some-people like to put it declare that your scary skygod or FSM has told you what is right or wrong.
or
2. Leave it up to the democratic process.
I find it so very interesting that many people scream how evil religion is only to set themselves up as there own personal God.
If do not believe that there is a God or absolute right or wrong then only right is what the majority declares right or what some dictator decides.
"That is religious intolerance - when you try to force everyone else to behave the way your religion says they should behave, with no justification other than your personal views on what god wants. When people like Card try to force others to conform to his religious beliefs, he is the one who is infringing on the religious freedoms of others. Don't you dare try to portray us as not supporting freedom of religion simply because we don't want blatantly religious beliefs codified into laws."
I agree with you up to one point. How is Card forcing you to do anything? Does he have a gun to your head? Is he going to throw you in a camp? Last time I checked he wasn't doing anything but voicing his opinions. Doesn't he have as much right to voice his opinions as anyone else? Or do you feel that because you disagree with them that is enough to take that right away from him?
Re:Card's Ideals (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh. Yes, you've put your finger nicely on the problem there. Sometime in the last two-three decades the definition of "tolerance" has changed from 'tolerating', as you display here, to the necessity to actively approve the behaviour in question. A rather intriguing proposition when the behaviour in question is multiculturalism, to say the least; note that nobody ever criticizes Muslims for their anti-homosexual stances, for instance.
Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?
Well, by current standards, yes indeed you are. Doubleplusbadthink! Express that kind of thing in polite society these days, and it's off to the reeducation camps and show trials for you! Well, "sensitivity training sessions" and "public apologies", anyways, but I'm sure the actual camps and trials are closer than you'd believe...
For what nothing it's worth, I'm with you that a reasonable standard of "tolerance" is, well, 'tolerating', but then again I'm such a hardcore libertarian that my response to the whole gay marriage thing is "What the hell business does government have sticking its nose into any kind of personal private arrangements individuals want to call 'marriage' anyways? Let's eliminate ALL laws concerned with marriage, then they have NOTHING to bitch about!" which is pretty much as much beyond the pale of acceptable opinion as yours is, so there you go.
Re:Oh, bloody please (Score:3, Insightful)
The dark secret of homosexual society - the one that dares not speak its name - is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
Someone with this belief is pretty much the definition of a homophobe. It seems that Card believes being homosexually raped somehow involuntarily changes your sexual orientation, or begins some kind of drug-like addiction one is powerless to escape. Or perhaps he means that homosexuals are some kind of evil cabal that somehow keeps people trapped in their community. Whatever it is, this passage reveals Card's view of homosexuality to be completely detached from reality.
The rest of the article, as you point out, is a bunch of strictly speaking correct but irrelevant technicalities. Less objectionable I suppose, but the only reason one would want to raise them in the first place is because one is a homophobe --- it's similar to Neo-nazis raising minor technical quibbles about the Holocaust, without necessarily explicitly revealing their racist agenda.
Re:Card's Ideals (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in favor of cutting the Gordian knot. I think there should be no (not any, zero) State sanctioning or involvement with marriage. No tax breaks (except for children, whose legal guardianship can be established). No tax hikes.
Want survivor benefits? Sign a contract. Want child support if the relationship dissolves? Sign a contract. Want social security benefits? (yeah, right...it's pretty to think...) Sign a contract.
The State should not be in the social engineering business. The State should be performing the minimum possible actions to maintain a civil society, not deciding who is allowed to put which naughty bits where.
You should be free to disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle. Others should be free to practice whatever lifestyle they wish, even though you labor under the misapprehension that they're "wrong" or "deviant".
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
You almost got it right. I don't think it's freedom of religion per se that is under attack. Rather, I see a consistent, pervasive demonization of religious people as a class. In short: prejudice, bigotry, condemnation of and hatred of people based on group affiliation.
And I find deeply disturbing some of the stuff that goes unchallenged around here.
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion is not under attack, not on Slashdot and not in the United States. What HAS happened is that some evangelicals have decided to use their religion as a political tool, and poorly (using a knife to turn screws is possible, but bad for the knife). Everyone here is fine with Mormons being Mormons.
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. I'm sorry that you've endured brainwashing at the hands of no-doubt-well-meaning christian clerics, but the fact of the matter is that neither they nor any other spiritual shamen hold a monopoly on morality.
In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that any system of right and wrong based on the caprices of a god is in fact inferior. Such systems take the childish, "wrong is what daddy doesn't want me to do, and he'll punish me if I do it," paradigm and modify it to replace "daddy" with a putative "big daddy in the sky" figure, but the essential core is the same. That's great if you're a primitive society in which education is a luxury afforded to the privileged few and critical thought is still more rare, as this provides a simple way for the clerical class to rule over and maintain some semblance of order in their society. "Don't eat shellfish, pigs are filthy, thou shalt not lie with a woman during her unclean time, thou shalt not kill, etc." are great ways to enforce hygiene and a sort of pseudo-morality upon those who haven't the intellect or education to think for themselves... but it presupposes ignorance and stupidity upon the part of the laiety. Shepherds are those who tend sheep, and there's a reason why christian clerics refer to themselves as shepherds and to their parishioners as their flock.
I won't argue the point that the concepts of right and wrong require some sort of frame of reference. I will, however, disagree vehemently that that frame of reference must necessarily be a deity of any description. Saying that by developing my own moral code I am setting myself up as my own personal god is again logically fallacious, as it presupposes that god is a necessary requirement for a moral code, which is incorrect.
I realize that this view completely contradicts yours. How fortunate for you, then, that we live in a country which has codified the freedom for you to believe what you wish so long as you don't force it upon the rest of us. It's called religious tolerance. That, sir, strikes me as being right - despite not requiring the existence of a god to make that determination.
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. No real difference at all. Ask anyone married to someone of another race if the old laws should have been left in place. Also, it's not even subtle.
Re:Pffft...Mormons (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I *would* deny him the right to *criminalize" those who disagree with HIM.
To quote from Card,
"The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly"
IOW, the goal is to make sure that if you're bold enough to come out of the closet, you also must be bold enough to face arrest.
But there's a bigger issue here -- and that is the root policy of making sure *everyone* can be found in violation of SOME law, so that if they want to arrest you, they can do so. In Card's case it's being applied only to homosexuals. But what if the old laws still applied to (another poster's example) racially-mixed marriages? should those laws remain on the books too, just because someone disagrees with the practice?
Point being, any law that is *designed* to be *selectively* enforced is wrong.
Re:The man knows quality. (Score:3, Insightful)